Author
Topic: ROCOR vs EP (Read 27308 times)

It seems to me that the heart of the issue, Seraphim, is hidden in the comments you make about Chesterton and Lewis. As I said before, I can only make limited comments concerning the former. However, it is easy enough to discover that Orthodoxy was written nearly two decades before Chesterton's conversion. Plotting a line from one to the other is perhaps reasonable, but it is hardly valid to project the convert of 1929 onto the author of 1911. People make the same error when addressing Newman's conversion, imputing the views of the cardinal upon the much earlier tractarian, when the tracts themselves speak to a considerable development of Newman's thought.

And as Keble remained in contrast to Newman, so Lewis remained in contrast to Chesterton. I don't know who is pushing these theories of Lewis as "Catholic" (maybe Peter Kreeft), but they don't deal well with the fact that he did not convert. Lewis's writings are thoroughly Anglican from beginning to end; I'm afraid I have to reject these theories of his Romanism and his ostenisbly dogmatic reference to tradition as wishful thinking.

At the same time your reference to contrasting opinions on the matter is of the same ilk as my comments about OCA vs. ROAC authorities. Referring dogmatically to the Apostolic Canons begs the question, since after all the deeper question is whether they should indeed be taken that way. One finds this kind of disagreement rather commonly when looking into Orthodoxy. Even taking into account that I cannot embrace Orthodoxy as my church, it seems to me that the "Dogmatic Traditionalist" viewpoint espoused for ROAC by yourself is not defensible without taking it as a given.

And there is still the problem that ROAC as an authority invites doubt. ROCOR's own origin is not without its difficulties, after all. My problem here isn't so much disagreeing with you as it is your unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of all these various disagreements. I cannot indefinitely and at length argue this. But your effective falsification of Lewis and the preposterous epistemology of religion that you present negate any authority you might attempt to claim for your presentation of Orthodox theology. NOt to mention the calendar arguments. I've been all over the canons and over the history of the calendar calculations, and it's quite clear that the new calendarists and the "modified Julian" groups are right, and the old calendarists are guilty of presenting a false picture of the matter. And it seems you don't even know what the Aleppo formula is.

I've been all over the canons and over the history of the calendar calculations, and it's quite clear that the new calendarists and the "modified Julian" groups are right, and the old calendarists are guilty of presenting a false picture of the matter.

When even those inside the Church do not understand the matter, I suppose it should not come as a shock when those outside of the Church do not understand either.

I've been all over the canons and over the history of the calendar calculations, and it's quite clear that the new calendarists and the "modified Julian" groups are right, and the old calendarists are guilty of presenting a false picture of the matter.

When even those inside the Church do not understand the matter, I suppose it should not come as a shock when those outside of the Church do not understand either.

Well, since the hardcore Old Calendarists are asserting that those who do not "understand" the issue as the O.C.s do are outside the Church, this is hardly a ringing condemnation.

It's better for us to cease this discussion. As far as I can tell, nothing I bring forward will make a difference: even canonical and dogmatic considerations seem to have zero weight as far as you're concerned (not an Orthodox position) - and if that means absolutely nothing in such a discussion, then there is no point in continuing further; this is clearly becoming a game of making it up as you go along, which again, is not Orthodox.

Not that I had any illusions about you being Orthodox (nor have you passed yourself off as such); which makes me question why I was debating this with you in the first place. It would be like me weighing into a conversation on which is the "correct" form of Islam (an odd thing for me to do, since strictly speaking I think both of them to be erroneous.) That, above all else, is my fault.

Orthodox Christians in Ireland were blessed this past weekend by the visitof the wonder-working Kursk Root Ikon of the Theotokos.

The ancient ikon, whose remarkable history has been intertwined with that ofRussian Orthodox Christians for seven centuries, visited Orthodox churchesin Dublin and Belfast.

On Friday evening, Father Vadim Zakrevsky of the Russian Orthodox Cathedralof the Dormition (ROCOR) in London brought the ikon to the newly-establishedRussian Orthodox Church of St Peter and St Paul in Dublin (ROC-MP), where aMoleben and Akathist were served. In attendance were Father GeorgeZavershinsky, rector of St Peter and St Paul church, as well as ArchbishopAnatoly of Kerch (ROC-Sourozh Diocese).

On Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning, the ikon returned to Dublin toAnnunciation Greek Orthodox Church (Greek Archdiocese of Thyateira), wheremany hundreds of faithful gathered to worship together and venerate the holyikon. The Sunday Liturgy was concelebrated by Father Ireneu Craciun, rectorof Annunciation church, Father Vadim and Father Geoffrey. Also serving wasFather Deacon Christian Gheorghiu of Annunciation church.

In his sermon, Father Vadim reminded the gathered faithful that the properresponse to the tremendous blessing which the Lord bestows upon His peopleis a life of spiritual struggle, prayer and fasting -- fasting not only fromfood at appointed times, but fasting at all times from sin, from temptation,from all that prevents us from honouring and worshipping God in company withthe Holy Theotokos and all the saints.

Speaking after the Divine Liturgy, Father Ireneu recalled the ikon's firstvisit to the Dublin in July 1993, when the church was going through a periodof crisis. The community was homeless, having been evicted from the rentedpremises they had used for a number of years. The visit of the holy ikon hadbrought much comfort in the midst of this distress, and within a month ofthe ikon's visit, the current church property had been miraculously found.

In his remarks, Father Geoffrey reflected on the significance that this HolyLiturgy and visit of the Kursk Root ikon fell between the New and OldCalendar celebrations of the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. Herecalled that, on the eve of the falling asleep of the Virgin Mary, theApostles who had spread out to all corners of the inhabited world to spreadthe Gospel were miraculously brought together in one place. Father Geoffreygave thanks to God for a similar gathering of Orthodox Christians from allparts of Ireland and beyond, from different churches and differentnationalities, coming together to worship in true unity, sharing One Bodyand One Cup. He expressed his hope that this Orthodox unity in Ireland wouldbe the lasting legacy of the ikon's visit.

Following the Divine Liturgy, Father Vadim returned to London where the ikonwill remain for the Feast of the Dormition. Archbishop Mark will then returnwith the ikon to New York later in the week.

Looks like the barriers between concelebration are breaking down almost everywhere except among some hardliners in the USA

Come'on Hypo, it's a news story, not a joint agreement signed by bishops. Don't read into it more than is there (though I'll be interested to see if the synod comes down on this priest). Rest assured, no barriers are breaking down. In fact, as world Orthodoxy continues to sign joint agreements recognizing heterodox sacraments (not to mention falling deeper into the trap of ecumenism, falsely thinking they will be able to witness better with the recent concessions and increased presence), the barriers are being built up more and reinforced.

Perhaps there would not be a need for a negative term (world Orthodoxy) if you had not imported a term from the ecumenical movement (Canonical Orthodox Churches) that distorted the picture for those unfamiliar with Orthodox ecclesiology

PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEWATTEMPTS TO STRONG-ARMTHE CHURCH INTO UNION WITHTHE MONOPHYSITESUnrestrained and unhindered, Patriarch Bartholomew proceeds to actualize union with the Monophysites. He impudently obliterated both movements opposing union with the heretical Monophysites. In the one case he condemned, with a "higher synod," the Patriarch of Jerusalem who opposed the union with the Monophysites. In order to mislead the public Bartholomew claimed that the Patriarch of Jerusalem intruded in another jurisdiction. In essence there was no such intrusion of any sort whatsoever. In the other case, as soon as he was informed that the Holy Community of Mount Athos had commissioned a study by a committee of abbots to suggest a course of action in the light of rumored unification, and before the Holy Community unanimously resolved and declared her decision to approve the condemnation of the unification with the Monophysites, the Patriarch proceeded to swiftly punish the Athonite monks. Thus they could not express their opinion as they did on the Balamand Agreement, and moreover he justified himself by claiming that they allegedly "displayed misconduct towards the Patriarchal Exarchate."

In the current year Patriarch Bartholomew inaugurated his visits with the heretical Patriarchate of the Monophysites. Patriarch Bartholomew conducted a visit following an invitation by the Monophysite Patriarch of Ethiopia between the 11th and 20th of January (1995). Bartholomew's synodia consisted of the Metropolitans Joachim of Chalcedon, Meliton of Philadelphia, Theoklitos of Metron, Michael of Austria, and Meletios Kalamaras of Neokopolis and Prevasa. He even chose the timing of the visit to coincide with the Monophysite feast of Theophany so that he could celebrate the feast with them for a second time. The media reporters alleged the crowd of Monophysites who arrived for the feast of Theo phany came because of Bartholomew. Besides why shouldn't the heretics in their delusion enjoy receiving a Patriarch, especially one who claims to represent all Orthodoxy that has "realized" her mistake and comes to reconciliate.

The real meaning of this visit is the expression of remorse and repentance. This official visit carries the message.. "You Monophysites assumed certain extreme positions in the past. But the Fourth Ecumenical Council and the Fifth, Sixth, and the Seventh that came thereafter likewise deviated. Times have changed and a new age has dawned on Orthodoxy, and the correction of the Ecumenical Councils and the new interpretation of the Bible has begun"! Church receptions, common prayers, and doxologies took place. In short, a complete recognition of the heresy of monophysitism.

In the city of Auxum, where he visited the ancient Monophysite Church of the Mother of God, Bartholomew said to the Ethiopian bishops:

"You are truly blessed. While the Old Israel laments destruction [of the Temple of Solomon], you rejoice in the divine services and the glorification of the Lord in this holy temple."! But, Bartholomew, the Lord does not dwell in man-made temples, neither does He rest in the "services" of the misbelieving heretics. God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, as the Lord said to the Samaritan Woman.

Addressing himself to all the Monophysites, Bartholomew said, "We came here as brothers to brothers in Christ, as members of the one, ancient and undivided Eastern Orthodox family that, having unfortunately lost her unity fifteen centuries ago, today seeks and rediscovers it by God's Grace. It was chiefly for the present reconciliation and unification that this trip was undertaken by us." (Apogevmitini, Jan.29, 1995)

Monophysites are not "brothers in Christ." Heretical Monophysites are not one family [a new ecumenical term] with the Orthodox. The reasons for their condemnation by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils have never been annulled, nor have they repented in order to become members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That trip's aim was a traitorous and strong-armed unification. Patriarch Bartholomew, following the example of the Patriarch of Antioch, came for ecclesiastical communion and common prayer with the heretical Monophysites. Communions such as this are no longer criticized, but they are passed in silence and downgraded to a mere formality. Bartholomew, pointing out the "mistakes" by the Ecumenical Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church said, "The large Christian family gathers again, and the Church has come out of her isolation that past mistakes and painful historical circumstances had imposed on her. As evidence we point to the current successful conclusion of the dialogue with the Ethiopian Church." (Nea, January ~, 1995)

All these events indicate the violation of the holy canons that prohibit ecclesiastical communion of the Orthodox with the heretics. Unfortunately, they are advancing unrestrained and completely unopposed towards the pan-heresy of ecumenism.

Hypo-Ortho

You got me on that one, I haven't a clue I assume you will tell me, though?

I just noticed, Justin (Paradosis), in reading in another forum that the HOCNA (Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston) "Metroplitan" EPHRAIM, a schismatic from the Orthodox (including the ROCOR) viewpoint, is one who is exceedingly fond of using the epithet "WORLD Orthodoxy" in order to disparage all the historical ancient Eastern Orthodox patriarchates as well as all the other autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches throughout the world which do not recognize the HOCNA as Orthodox, but which do indeed see the HOCNA as having cut itself off from the Body of the Church. Now, I'm not saying that "Metropolitan" EPHRAIM originated the epithet "WORLD Orthodoxy," mind you, but I am saying that the epithet is fondly used by some of the schismatics in the self-styled "True" Orthodox Churches.

Hypo-Ortho

Someone who apparently lurks here at OC.net sent me the title of this book a few days ago: Something Is Stirring in World Orthodoxy (Paperback, 1978) by Stanley S. Harakas

He was more right than he knew

Father Stanley Harakas, a respected priest of the GOA, I don't think, Justin, hardly used the term "World Orthodoxy" here in the same way as would the schismatic HOCNA's "Metropolitan" EPHRAIM. Fr. Stanley, I should think, rather used the term as an alternative to "universal."

It's better for us to cease this discussion. As far as I can tell, nothing I bring forward will make a difference: even canonical and dogmatic considerations seem to have zero weight as far as you're concerned (not an Orthodox position) - and if that means absolutely nothing in such a discussion, then there is no point in continuing further; this is clearly becoming a game of making it up as you go along, which again, is not Orthodox.

Well, part of the problem is shown in your next paragraph, with its analogy to a discussion of Islam among us. Never mind the implicit insult; the analogy is defective because it brushes over the history that Orthodoxy and the West do in fact share. I know little of Islam, and frankly I see little point in learning a lot about it, because some of the things I do know show that they have a bunch of basic points wrong. If the prophet of God can't get his story straight about what Christianity actually teaches, then I have no use for his prophecies.

But that's not the situation we have here. The materials you cite as authorities are part of the common heritage of our churches. Indeed, for an Anglican, the ongoing history of Orthodoxy is also part of our heritage. And if we get things wrong about that, we certainly ought to be corrected.

What I see, however, is a dispute within Orthodoxy-- and here I mean "Orthodoxy" to signify those churches that call themselves Orthodox (and which have any plausible claim to this title-- I don't care to deal with all the "Mar Bob" and dubious Old Catholic pretenders). And it is a dspute about the significance of the material which Orthodoxy shares with Catholicms and Anglicanism. Therefore, I do have some interest in the matter even outside of this forum.

The issue of praying with heretics ought to be different from the issue of the calendar. But looking at the canons it can easily seen that they do not demand usage of the Dionysian calculation. Indeed, a real hardhead could assert that if the Alexandrian church were to change its calculation, the rest of the Orthodox church would be forced to follow suit.

It is striking to me how I refer to things and use words which I'm pretty sure that lots of people here don't recognize, and nobody says a thing. Nobody has even asked what the Aleppo solution is. Yet all of this is out there, plain to see, through the wonders of modern technology.

The reason why you are doubting whether you should have engaged me at all is, I suspect, because you consider me fraki[/]. Truth doesn't matter if it comes out of the mouth of a heretic.

From Keble: It is striking to me how I refer to things and use words which I'm pretty sure that lots of people here don't recognize, and nobody says a thing. Nobody has even asked what the Aleppo solution is. Yet all of this is out there, plain to see, through the wonders of modern technology.

That brings up an interesting point.

I will admit that I have not had any idea what you were talking about when you wrote about the calendars, the problems involved and the possible solutions.

What is the "Aleppo Solution"?

If you would care to explain, I would be glad to read your posts.

Honestly, I never cared that much about the calendar one way or another. Old or New, as long as we honor Christ and the saints, that's the way I have looked at it.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Most of us (me included) have a hard enough time with basic ecclesiology, christology,etc. Don't be shocked when we don't drop everything to hear about the latest, greatest calendar discussion/debate/agreement.

From Keble: It is striking to me how I refer to things and use words which I'm pretty sure that lots of people here don't recognize, and nobody says a thing. Nobody has even asked what the Aleppo solution is. Yet all of this is out there, plain to see, through the wonders of modern technology.

That brings up an interesting point.

I will admit that I have not had any idea what you were talking about when you wrote about the calendars, the problems involved and the possible solutions.

What is the "Aleppo Solution"?

If you would care to explain, I would be glad to read your posts.

The Aleppo solution was a new paschalion worked out by a group meeting in (surprise) Aleppo in the late 1990s. The solution they came up with was to abandon the Dionysian calculation which approximates the solar and lunar motion, and which is the basis for both the old and new calendars. In its place, they were going to use the "actual" lunar and solar positions as seen in Jerusalem, so that Easter would then fall on the first Sunday after the day of the full moon in Jerusalem after the equinox. I put "actual" in quotes because this motion would be calculated ahead of time by the astronomers (we can do that these days, of course). The original plan was to put this into effect starting in (if I remember correctly) 2002 because in 2001 everyone observed Easter on the same date.

Naturally the whole thing fell through because a bunch of Orthodox churches wouldn't go along. (I'm not sure which ones.) There is some documentation of this on the internet somewhere but it will take me a while to hunt it donw.

Most of us (me included) have a hard enough time with basic ecclesiology, christology,etc. Don't be shocked when we don't drop everything to hear about the latest, greatest calendar discussion/debate/agreement.

The Aleppo solution was an ecumenical attempt at putting everyone on the same calendar. From what I can tell, it failed precisely because of these other issues that have nothing to do with the actual content of the calendar per se. I've heard rationalizations of the pascalion of the old calendar (never mind the fixed feasts), which strike me as precisely rationalizations; and we've been around the canons, which do not mention the specific calculations to be made.

So what happens when a cooperative effort is made to put everyone in the East and the West on the same calendar? It gets shot down, not because ther eis anything wrong with the calculation, but because various churches-- especially Orthodox churches-- use the calendar issue as a vehicle for their ecclesiological spats.

If you will permit me a totally Anglican comment: To me, personally, this doesn't look like charity at all. It looks like hubris.

There is a lot more in the calendar issue than meets the eye. In 1969-70, under pressure from the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, the Jerusalem Patriarchate had introduced the 'New Julian' Calendar (as had the Bulgarian, Macedonian, and other Patriarchates, since there was overwhelming pressure at the time to introduce the New Calendar). That same year, on Great Saturday (New Calendar), when from time immemorial the Holy Fire descends on the Lord's Sepulchre, this year the Fire did not appear. Shocked, Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem commanded that the Old Calendar, which had been in use until then, be restored immediately in the jurisdiction of his Patriarchate. The next year, the Holy Fire once again descended on the Lord's Sepulchre on Great Saturday (Old Calendar); the same occurs even until the present.

The miracle of the Holy Fire is extremely well documented by accounts going back to the 4th century. It has occured every year on Great Saturday since that time and the only time it is recorded to have not occured was the year the Jerusalem Patriarch was put on the New Calendar.

Something similiar occured in a small church, the location of which I can't remember at the moment (Meltinas), where every Pascha the baptismal font miraculously filled with water after which their catechumen were baptised and the water left in the same manner in which it had come (there was no spring or other water source nearby). When the region switched to the New Calendar, they were dismayed when on Pascha the font remained empty. However, on the day of Pascha according to the Old Calendar, they witnessed the font filling with water as it had done every other year. Naturally, they switched back to the Old Calendar.

unworthy John (who worships in a greek church on the New Calendar but hopes that one day it will restore the Old)

There is a lot more in the calendar issue than meets the eye. In 1969-70, under pressure from the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, the Jerusalem Patriarchate had introduced the 'New Julian' Calendar (as had the Bulgarian, Macedonian, and other Patriarchates, since there was overwhelming pressure at the time to introduce the New Calendar). That same year, on Great Saturday (New Calendar), when from time immemorial the Holy Fire descends on the Lord's Sepulchre, this year the Fire did not appear. Shocked, Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem commanded that the Old Calendar, which had been in use until then, be restored immediately in the jurisdiction of his Patriarchate. The next year, the Holy Fire once again descended on the Lord's Sepulchre on Great Saturday (Old Calendar); the same occurs even until the present.

Let me guess: you read this in A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar, or a website quoting the same. But you have not quoted the beginning of the passage:

"In August of 1971, Nikolai [now Hieromonk Theophan] and I (Hieromonk Cassian) were coming back from rest and medical treatment at Narechen. Passing through the town of Plovdiv, we called in at the Metochion of Zographou to venerate the tomb of the Holy King Boris [ 906]. Schema-monk Seraphim of Zographou was in attendance at the tomb. He told us that recently (1969-70), under pressure from the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, (.....)"

The parentheses in italics are mine; the passage continues exactly as appears in Prodromos' message. This is the only mention of this I could find using Google, though I tried several different ways. One would think that such a remarkable event, with many witnesses, in a modern city in modern times, would be widely recorded. Yet the only mention of it is as of a traveller's tale, related in a remote shrine by an obscure monk.

And even then it does not properly answer the question. If the bulk of the Orthodox Churches were to adopt a new pascalion, would it affect such a miracle? Nobody knows-- if the fire indeed did not show in 1970, it may well have been the deviance of Jerusalem that was at fault, rather than the calculation per se.

Sure. God wants the faithful to know that he exists, so he makes fire appear (or an icon cry) on the same day every year -- and only a few people witness it. What does it say in the scripture about asking for signs?

Kinda like why aliens only seem to kidnap the weirdo's but never do "The Day the Earth Stood Still" thing (i.e. Landing in the middle of D.C.)

Keble, you are correct, that is where I copied the quote from but I have come across the same information from a number of sources which I didn't find using google. Google is great, but it is far from perfect and seems to be getting less so every day as the content on the Internet grows. A few years ago I was able to find stuff on the "net" a lot more easily. Are we now getting to the point of saying "if google doesn't find it, it doesn't exist or it isn't true"? Still, I will try and find my other sources again and do a bit more digging for background as you are otherwise perfectly correct in your criticism.

TomS, this particular miracle has been happening every year since the fourth century in that exact same location on that same (moveable feast) day. When the Armenians paid the Turks to keep the Greeks out of the church so they could receive the Holy Light instead of them, one of the columns at the church entrance split and the Holy Light came out from there and lit the JP's lambada. These signs were given by God, they were not "asked for" as you suggest and these "supposed " miracles have been witnessed by thousands of pilgrims every year. The Holy Light is then taken by aeroplane to Orthodox churches all over the world so that on Great Sunday, at midnight, we can all light our lambadas from the same flame. There is nothing suspect about this miracle. It has become an integral part of our Paschal services.

unworthy John

Logged

Hypo-Ortho

The annual "Miracle of the Holy Fire" is indeed well known by all pious Orthodox Christians, and it is factual, like it or not, that it has only occurred on the date of the Orthodox Paschalion reckoned by the Julian Calendar. Moreover, even when under the domination of Islam or bribed by Armenians so that they should enter the Holy Sepulchre first, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and his faithful are the only ones to whom the Holy Fire is originally given--*they* then share it with the others, e.g., Armenians, Latins, etc.

I can personally testify that I have seen several photographs of this annual miracle.

The annual "Miracle of the Holy Fire" is indeed well known by all pious Orthodox Christians, and it is factual, like it or not, that it has only occurred on the date of the Orthodox Paschalion reckoned by the Julian Calendar.

I don't know about "factual"-- I have to doubt that you have the 1600-odd testimonies to establish this utterly. Be that as it may, we are now bumping up, again, against the problem that the pascalion used now is not the paschalion that was used then. The Dionysian calculation was not introduced at Nicea, after all, but some decades later. In the interim, the phrase "reckoned by the Julian calendar" was, from what I can see, meaningless.

Quote

I can personally testify that I have seen several photographs of this annual miracle.

I'm pretty sure that the photographs that you've seen show the fire being carried out of the inner church. Be that as it may, one would expect that in 1970 such a photograph could (and probably was) taken which would resolve the matter of the anecdote in question conclusively.

I watched the video of it and let me tell you it's real. When you see the fire jump from hanging oil lamp to hanging oil lamp and you see priests stick the fire in their beards and nothing happens, you know it is for real.

My priest once doubted the miracle of the Holy Fire. On Holy Saturday he was thinking about it while he was lighting his lampadas. He thought to himself, "I think that thing is fake" at which time a flame jumped from his candle to the lampada and ignited it. He never spoke ill of that miracle again!

I am in several minds about the Holy Fire. Here is an article just published in the Glastonbury Review. It still doesn't make me sure either way.

===============================================

Holy Fire Dispute in Jerusalem

For centuries the Greek Orthodox and the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchates of Jerusalem have jointly conducted the Ceremony of the Holy Fire which takes place annually on Holy Saturday at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Greek Patriarch or his representative is accorded an honorary priority but is accompanied by an Armenian bishop or a priest representing the Armenian Patriarch. Although there have been many disputes in past centuries, these have been avoided in recent years because both parties have studiously adhered to the Status Quo respecting one another. However, in 2002 a dispute arose involving the newly elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch, Irenaios I. This was referred to the Status Quo Committee of both patriarchates, who met twice and discussed the issues in February 2003, but without reaching a final conclusion.

The Tomb of Christ is contained within a free standing apsidal structure, known as the Edicule, which stands under the Rotunda of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The entry is through a single doorway at the east end leading into a roughly square 'Chapel of the Angel' opposite which is the inner entrance to a short passageway leading into the Tomb Chamber. This is so low and narrow that only one fairly slim person can go in at a time, whilst because half of the Tomb Chamber consists of the burial couch, there is standing or kneeling room inside for only two persons. By acknowledging and respecting the order of priority, the Greek Patriarch or his representative goes into the Tomb Chamber first, followed by the Armenian representative.

Once inside the Tomb Chamber the Greek Patriarch or his representative and the Armenian representative kneel down next to each other in front of the stone on which our Lord was laid after his death, holding bunches of unlit candles and say their private prayers. After that there appears to be differing accounts of what actually takes place. The Greek Church asserts that the lighting of Holy Fire is a miracle, "fire from heaven", and that when their Patriarch says "certain prayers that have been handed down to us through the centuries" fire from heaven appears. "Light proceeds from the core of the stone - a blue, indefinable light which after some time kindles closed oil lamps as well as the two candles of the Patriarch" The Armenians by asserting that the Greek Patriarch or his representative lights his candles first from a special oil-lamp that was brought in earlier followed by the Armenian Bishop, does not claim a miraculous origin for the Holy Fire.

Having exchanged Paschal greetings either inside the Tomb Chamber or by the pedestal of the Stone of the Angel in the Chapel of the Angel they make their exeat. Since the Armenian is closer to the exit, he comes out first from the Tomb Chamber to the Chapel of the Angel followed by the Greek Patriarch both carrying the torches of the Holy Fire. Here they proceed towards round windows or openings which are in the Chapel of the Angel, the Greek Patriarch to the northern hole and the Armenian Bishop to the southern hole through which they pass them out respectively to the attendant torch-bearers of their communities. Then the Greek Patriarch knocks at the closed door of the Edicule to be opened and emerges first with torches in hand blessing the congregation, followed by the Armenian holding up his torch. At this point the Copts and the Syrians enter the Chapel of the Angel to light their candles.

In 2002 Father Samuel, the Armenian representative, accompanied the Greek Patriarch into the Tomb Chamber. After lighting their torches of the Holy Fire from the oil-lamp, while still inside the Tomb, the Patriarch held and slightly pulled Father Samuel's left arm telling him to go to his left side so that he himself would come out first to the Chapel of the Angel contrary to the traditional practice. Father Samuel objected to this suggestion and had to come out first from the Tomb. As Father Samuel approached the southern hole and was lighting other candles set there in order to pass them out, the Patriarch reached from behind him and pushed him away from the window. Thereupon there was a brief scuffle between the two.

In the discussions intended to resolve this conflict, Patriarch Irenaios put forward the suggestion to the Armenian Patriarch, Torkom II, that the Armenian representative charged with the duty of conducting the Holy Fire Ceremony with him, should not enter the Tomb Chamber with him, but should stand outside by the pedestal of the Stone of the Angel in the Chapel of the Angel and should receive the Holy Fire from the Patriarch. This was unacceptable to the Armenians as it violated the Status Quo.

With matters still unresolved there were fears that the feuding factions might result in violence this Pascha. Israeli police had threatened to bar attendance to all but a few hundred worshippers if the sides did not reach an accord. Fortunately because of a last-minute deal brokered by the Israeli police events passed off peacefully. The cost of the temporary compromise, however, has been the widening of divisions between the two churches.

Archbishop Aristarchos, General Secretary of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate's Holy Synod, said that this year the ritual passed off peacefully because the Armenians agreed not to enter the tomb at the same time as the Greek Orthodox. The archbishop said Greek Orthodox leaders would make every effort to achieve reconciliation with the Armenian Orthodox representatives. "No one can deny that relations have been disturbed. But both of us need to try not to alienate the other any further," he said. "I hope we will be successful, with God's help, and that we can reach a [long-standing] agreement without any involvement with the Israelis."

Hypo-Ortho

Sadly, Anastasios, there will always be skeptics and "doubting Thomas's," even among some of our own. It is more to be expected from the non-Orthodox though. I have personally witnessed a few miracles in my lifetime, so I *KNOW* for sure that God still works them!

Hypo-Ortho

Well, luckily for those skeptical Orthodox among us at least, we don't have to accept the Miracle of the Holy Fire as an article of faith anymore than we have to accept the Shroud of Turin or the existence of Washington, DC, as genuine.

Sadly, Anastasios, there will always be skeptics and "doubting Thomas's," even among some of our own. It is more to be expected from the non-Orthodox though. I have personally witnessed a few miracles in my lifetime, so I *KNOW* for sure that God still works them!

It's not the miracle per se that I would doubt, but rather the tale about what supposedly happened in 1970.

And if you had come to Summerfest, we would have not only brought you into the presence of DC, but also shown you the reality of Ebor!

Sadly, Anastasios, there will always be skeptics and "doubting Thomas's," even among some of our own. It is more to be expected from the non-Orthodox though. I have personally witnessed a few miracles in my lifetime, so I *KNOW* for sure that God still works them!

Hypo-Ortho

I'm with you, Brother Hypo.

I experienced an entire series of miraculous answers to prayer in connection with four visits to the holy relics of St. Matryona at the Pokrovsky Monastery in Moscow in 2001.

Doors opened at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for my wife in record time, and her scheduled visa interview - September 12, 2001 - was miraculously moved up to September 6. We all know what happened on Sept. 11. The Embassy shut down for several days afterwards. Visa interviews were postponed indefinitely and visas became very difficult to acquire.

But my wife got her visa . . . before 9/11 changed everything . . . thanks to the prayers of St. Matryona and God's grace in answering them.

My wife also prayed for a baby. Our little redheaded Anna was the answer, born on October 6, 2002, on the anniversary of our Orthodox Church wedding!

I also believe in the Holy Fire and I DEFINITELY believe in miraculous weeping icons. I believe in the incorruptibles, as well.

I don't expect miracles or look for them and I certainly don't demand them as proof.

But God can and will do the impossible for His people who believe in His name.

Glory to you, O God, glory to you!

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas